The freeman. (Parkersburg, W. Va.) 1886-18??, 1887-12-14
AND THE LIQUOR STRONG
HOLDS QUAKE AND
TREMBLE.
No Compensation to the
Home DestrOyers.
Prohibition Laws Sustained at
Every Point.
Synopsis of Opinion in the Noted
Kansas Cases.

w ASdlNGTON, ~, DeC6mOoT y.
A very important decision, and one
likely to be far reaching in its
consequences, was rendered in the
Supreme Court today in the
noted Kansas prohibition cases OF
Mugler against The State of Kan
sas and The State of Kansas
against Ziebold and others. The
judgment of the Court was pro-
nounced in a long and elaborate
opinion by Justice Harlan, who
said:
"The general question in each
case IS whether the prohibition
statutes of Kansas are in conflict
with that clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment which provides that
mo State shall make or enforce any
law which shall abridge the privi-
leges or immunities of citizens of
the United States, nor shall any
State deprive any person of life,
liberty or property without due
process of law
That legislation Dy State pro
hibiting the manufacture within
her limits of il toxicating liquors,
to be there sold or bartered for gen.
eral use as a beverage, does not
necessarily infringe any right,
privilege or immunity secured by
the Constitution of the United
States, is
MADE CLEAR BY THE DECISIONS OF
THIS COURT,
rendered before and since the
adoption of the Fourteenth Amend.
ment.
1t is, however, contended that
although the State may prohibit
the manufacture of intoxicating
liquors for sale or barter within
her limits for general use as beve'
rage, no convention or Legislature
has the right, under our form OF
government, to prohibit any citi
zen from manufacturing for his
own use or for export or storage
any article of food or drink not en-
dangering or affecting the rights
OF others.
The argument made in support
of the first branch of this proposi-
ton, briefly stated, is: That in
the implied compacts between
the State and the citizen, certain
rights are reserved by the latter
which are guaranteed by the con
stitutiona provisions for the pro
lection of life, liberty and property
against deprivation without due
process of law and with which the
State cannot interfere; that among
those rights is that of manufac.ur
ing, for ones own use, either fooc
or drink that, while according te
the doctrines of the communes the
State may control the tastes, appe
tites, habits, dress, food and drink
of the citiz6n, our system of Gov
eminent, based upon the individu
atty and intelligence Of the PEG
pie, does not claim to control hin
except as to his conduct to others
leaving him the sole judge as to al
that only affects himself.
1t will be ohso~ Il that the prop
osition, and ~ 90. gument made
in support of ., equally conced'
that the rigat to manufacture
drink for ones personal use, is sub
ject to the condition that such
manufacture does not endanger o.
affect the rights of others. If such
manufacture does p-ejudiclally at
feet the rights and interests of the
community, it follows from the
very premises stated by counse
that society has the power to
PROTECT ITsELF BY LEGISLATION
against the injurious consequence
of that business. AS was said il
Mum VS.. Illinois, GA U. S. 1874
while power does not exist with
the whole people to control right
that are purely and exclusively
private, G 'vernment may requira
each citizen 80 to conduct himsel
and so to use his own property g.
not unnecessarily to injure an
other.